Illegal immigrants, drugs found on Catalina Island motorboat

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies seized a large cache of marijuana and detained three Mexican nationals after a flat-bottomed, motorboat ran aground in a remote area of Catalina Island, sheriff's officials said Monday.

A department employee on the island called for backup from the sheriff's Avalon station at 5:45 p.m. Sunday after seeing the 30-foot Ponga with two, 250-horsepower motors and 400 gallons of fuel aboard had become stranded in Cottonwood Cove, a remote area on the southwest side of the island, said Capt. Mike Parker of the sheriff's department.

Deputies said three men claimed they had paid a smuggler to bring them to the United States but found what appeared to be multiple bundles, later identified as a "large quantity of marijuana," Parker said.

"This was discovered because of a very observant sheriff's employee working a remote part of the island," Parker said. "He saw something that looked suspicious. It's not typical to see a boat run aground there. His suspicions were raised, and he thought there was more to the story."

It took several hours and two separate flights to load the helicopter and transport the shipment to the mainland.

The three men who told authorities they were being smuggled into the U.S. and were abandoned after the boat ran aground were detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/illegal-immigrants-drugs-found-on-catalina-island-motor-boat.html#more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona's proposed illegal immigration crackdown akin to Nazi tactics, Cardinal Roger Mahony says

Cardinal Roger Mahony blasted Arizona's proposed crackdown on illegal immigration, calling it "the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law."

"American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation," Mahony wrote on his blog.

The Arizona measure, which has yet to be signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, would require police, if they suspect someone is in the country illegally, to determine the person's immigration status. Currently, officers can ask about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. Those who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally face misdemeanor charges.

Mahony is a long-time supporter of immigrant rights and has spoken out before on legislation be believes is unfair to immigrants.

"The Arizona legislature just passed the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law," Mahony said on his blog. "The tragedy of the law is its totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder and consume public resources. That is not only false, the premise is nonsense."

He added: "The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That's also nonsense."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/arizona-illegal-immigrant-crackdown-akin-to-nazi-tactics-cardinal-mahony-says.html#more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Yes on Proposition 13

The measure encourages property owners to make their buildings more quake-resistant.

April 19, 2010

The June 8 ballot includes five statewide measures, most of which raise familiar issues. For example, voters must decide whether the two ballot measures that propose to reform elections really can take politics out of, well, politics, and if so, whether that's a good idea. Then they have to figure out if the two initiatives sponsored by private companies protect consumers and taxpayers, as the backers claim, or if they just help out the businesses.

With these thorny questions down the ballot, voters can feel some sense of relief that the first measure they'll be confronted with is straightforward and easy to support. Proposition 13 would encourage property owners to update their buildings to better withstand earthquakes. It's as close as a California ballot measure comes to being a no-brainer.

It's a direct descendant of the more famous Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that launched the property tax revolt. That earlier measure changed the law to ensure that property owners see low and predictable annual tax increases even when their property values soar. The assessed value is readjusted and taxed on the true market value only when the property is sold — or when significant new construction increases the value.

The Legislature later realized that the provision governing new construction might keep owners of dangerous unreinforced brick, clay or cement-block buildings from doing necessary earthquake retrofitting, for fear of being reassessed. So in 1984, it sent voters a measure to make clear that seismic upgrading of those buildings wouldn't result in a tax reassessment for 15 years after the work is done. Voters passed it. Then in 1990, lawmakers proposed another amendment that gave themselves the power to exempt seismic improvements in other structures, without the 15-year limit. Voters passed that one too. But now some buildings are subject to the time limit and some aren't. Proposition 13 — this year's version — erases the distinction between the different kinds of buildings and eliminates the time limit. If it passes, earthquake safety improvements will result in higher taxes only after the building is sold.

Cities and counties might get slightly less tax revenue. Not a lot less, though, because many assessors haven't found it worthwhile to keep track of seismic improvements on thousands of buildings.

The Times shares the deep reservations that many Californians have about the original Proposition 13. But as long as it remains part of the state Constitution, it should operate fairly and wisely. Exempting seismic upgrades from reassessment makes sense because it encourages owners to make their buildings more quake-resistant. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 13.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-0420-prop-20100420,0,2500720,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board sits empty

Obama has failed to appoint any members to the congressional panel.

April 19, 2010

Suppose Congress created a board to protect the privacy of Americans and no one showed up. That's the bizarre reality of the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, all of whose five seats have been vacant since 2008. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) is pressing the Obama administration to fill the vacancies. In doing so, the president should choose individuals of sufficient experience and stature to act as watchdogs over the intelligence community and the Justice Department.

The board was originally established by Congress in 2004 and was raised to the status of an independent agency within the executive branch in 2007. Its mandate is to advise the administration when anti-terrorism policies threaten to trample civil liberties, and it has access to both public and classified information. It's meant to complement, not replace, congressional oversight and investigations by the inspectors general of the Justice Department and the CIA. It also makes an annual report to Congress — or would, if it were reconstituted with new appointments.

Although it was the George W. Bush administration that inaugurated the illegal wiretapping of Americans suspected of being in contact with foreign terrorists, invasions of privacy are a constant danger in any intelligence program empowered to collect and scrutinize the personal and electronic records of U.S. citizens. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is designed to help protect against abuses in advance so that we don't have to conduct inquests after the fact.

Appropriately, anti-terrorism measures constantly are being refined to address new challenges. In a letter to Obama, Harman and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, cite policy changes proposed after the attempted destruction of an airliner on Christmas, including expanded watch lists and increased use of body-scanning technology at airports.

It would be naïve to think that the board always will prevail in its recommendations to Congress or the administration. Nor is it the only brake on ill-considered or legally dubious anti-terrorism initiatives. In addition to various inspectors general, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to advise the administration and federal agencies of the legal limits on counter-intelligence operations and other tactics in the war on terrorism.

Stung by criticism of its inaction, the administration insists that it is considering candidates for the three Democratic seats on the board and expects congressional Republicans to recommend nominees for the other two seats soon. Better late than never, but the empty seats at the table more than a year into the Obama administration are an embarrassment.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-privacy-20100420,0,6706657,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two Dead in Tennessee Hospital Shooting

A gunman fatally shot a woman and injured two others before killing himself outside a hospital in Knoxville, Tenn., the police said.

The attack happened at about 4:30 p.m. near the patient discharge area of the Parkwest Medical Center, the police said. One woman died at the scene and the other two were taken to The University of Tennessee Medical Center's trauma unit for treatment. At least one of the surviving victims was in critical condition at the hospital and was scheduled to undergo surgery, police officials said.

Investigators on Monday night were still trying to determine a motive and considered it a random act of violence.

“It does not appear that he had any history with the victims or the medical center,” said Darrell DeBusk, the spokesman for the Knoxville City Police Department. The police and Parkwest officials said that all three victims were current or former employees of the hospital.

Mr. DeBusk said the women were shot outside the doors of the patient discharge area. Right after that, the man turned the pistol on himself, he said. It was unclear how many shots were fired.

Officials late Monday night identified the dead woman as Rachel Wattenbarger, 40. The surviving victims were identified as Ariane Guerin, 26, and Nancy Chancellor, 32. The name of the suspect was withheld pending notification of next of kin, officials said.

After the shooting, members of a SWAT team searched the hospital to ensure there was not another attacker inside, the police said.

“We had to make sure he was acting alone,” Mr. DeBusk said. After the security sweep, the hospital was reopened, except in the immediate area where the shooting happened. Mr. DeBusk said it appeared that the gunman carried only one pistol but declined to describe its make and caliber.

On Monday night, investigators were conducting interviews with possible witnesses to help determine if the suspect had entered the hospital at any time before the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/us/20tennessee.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Immigration Bill Reflects a Firebrand's Impact

PHOENIX — The Arizona Senate passed one of the most stringent immigration laws in the country on Monday, marking a new level of influence for a Republican state senator who not long ago was seen by many as an eccentric firebrand.

Passage of the law, which would, among other things, allow the authorities to demand proof of legal entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, testified to the relative lack of political power of Arizona Latinos, and to the hardened views toward illegal immigration among Republican politicians both here and nationally.

As if to underscore how the political landscape will be changed by the law, Senator John McCain , Republican of Arizona, who had refused to back the most extreme anti-immigration measures, came out in support of it just hours before its passage.

“I think it is a good tool,” said Mr. McCain, who is being challenged in a primary by a conservative former congressman who is thumping him on immigration. Mr. McCain added that he believed the bill reflected frustration that the federal government had not done enough to secure the border and enforce immigration law.

The state senator who wrote the law, Russell Pearce, had long been considered a politically incorrect embarrassment by more moderate members of his party — often to the delight of his supporters. There was the time in 2007 when he appeared in a widely circulated photograph with a man who was a featured speaker at a neo-Nazi conference. (Mr. Pearce said later he did not know of the man's affiliation with the group.)

In 2006, he came under fire for speaking admirably of a 1950s federal deportation program called Operation Wetback, and for sending an e-mail message to supporters that included an attachment — inadvertently, he said — from a white supremacist group.

But Mr. Pearce, 62, cannot be dismissed as just the party's right-wing fringe. As chairman of the Senate's appropriation committee, he controls whose bills are financed, and he has shown an uncanny knack to capitalize on this border state's immigration anxiety.

While surveys show immigration is less of a hot-button issue than it was a few years ago, Republican conservatives still care about the issue. In a New York Times/CBS News poll released last week, 82 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters said illegal immigration was a “very serious” problem.

The nightly news here is filled with stories of raids on drop houses filled with immigrants and drug-related shootouts and home invasions. Mexico's drug violence has bloodied Nogales, Sonora, across the border from Nogales, Ariz. And just a couple of weeks ago, a southern Arizona rancher was killed on his property by someone the police suspect was involved in smuggling.

“Senator Pearce is the one to articulate things and take bullets and arrows,” said Stan Barnes, a former Republican legislator and political consultant who has supported Mr. Pearce. The issue, he said, “has electrified and energized a great many Arizonans.”

More than a few Democrats took notice that Mr. Pearce, whose district is in Mesa, a Phoenix suburb, managed to win unanimous support for the bill from House Republicans, even from some moderates who had voiced misgivings about it.

One of those moderates, State Representative Bill Konopnicki, Republican of Yuma, said planned amendments to address legal and other concerns never materialized. In the end, he said, “everybody was afraid to vote no on immigration.”

“We are going to look like Alabama in the '60s,” said Mr. Konopnicki, who is facing a tough election and did not believe voting no would change the outcome..

In the Senate, only one Republican, Carolyn S. Allen, voted against the bill, and she is one of the few leaving office because of term limits and not seeking another post. She did not respond to a message left at her office.

The bill makes it a state crime for immigrants not to carry authorization papers, requires the police “when practicable” to check the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally and allows people to sue cities and counties if the law is not being enforced.

Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who, like Mr. McCain, is facing primary challengers from the right, is widely expected to sign the bill, though her spokesman said she would not comment.

That the bill has gotten this far has angered advocates for immigrants, who have staged protests and sent a stream of postcards to the governor urging her to veto it.

But analysts said its legislative success may be another sign that, while the Latino population is growing here, a large number of Latinos are under age or are not citizens and so are less powerful than those in California, New Mexico or Texas.

“Right now, there are supporters of the bill who are thinking, We don't need that vote,” said Rodolfo Espino, a political science professor at Arizona State University who studies ethnic voting trends. “With a low Hispanic voter turnout, they are not going to be made to pay a price for this.”

State Representative Ben Miranda, a Democrat and co-chairman of the legislature's Latino caucus, agreed. In other border states, Mr. Miranda said, “there is much more political clout in the Latino community.” And Arizona feels the effects of immigration more acutely, as the state with the most arrests for illegal crossing and drug trafficking across the border.

“Arizona is the funnel to the United States,” he said. “It's not California. It's not Texas. It's not New Mexico. People are in hysteria here. It is totally different.”

People on both sides of the debate see the bill as a result of the failure of Congress to overhaul the immigration system, and predict that other states, as they have in the past, will be inspired by Arizona to consider similar legislation.

Mr. Pearce, who did not return a telephone call, has said he is on a mission to rid the state of illegal immigrants and discourage others from coming.

Mr. Miranda and others wonder whether Mr. Pearce's personal experience motivates him: his son, a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy, was shot and wounded in 2004 by an illegal immigrant and Mr. Pearce, a former sheriff's deputy, was shot and wounded while arresting gang members 20 years ago, he has said.

But on the floor of the Senate, which approved the bill 17 to 11, Mr. Pearce said he pushed the bill because the federal government had not done enough.

“This law is not about race,” he said. “It's about what is illegal.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/us/20immig.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the White House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remembrance for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

On Friday the President issued a Proclamation deeming today National Day of Service and Remembrance for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism.  The attack on Oklahoma City happened on April 19, 1995:

Presidential Proclamation- National Day of Service and Remembrance for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/19/remembrance-victims-and-survivors-terrorism

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Homeland Security

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Readout of Secretary Napolitano's Visit to Oklahoma City

Release Date: April 19, 2010

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today visited Oklahoma City to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and deliver remarks about the Department's efforts to protect against evolving threats of terrorism and build resilient communities as part of the Oklahoma City National Memorial Annual Remembrance Ceremony. Her prepared remarks are available  here .

Secretary Napolitano also toured the Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum with Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty and Fire Chief Keith Bryant—both of whom responded to the bombing 15 years ago—and Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry.

In addition, Secretary Napolitano met with state and local first responders to discuss the importance of close coordination among all levels of government to support frontline emergency response and management efforts. She stressed her commitment to sharing information with state, local and tribal law enforcement to ensure those charged with protecting America's communities against violence have access to the information they need about evolving threats of terrorism and violent extremism.

Secretary Napolitano also participated in a panel discussion about the media's role in informing the public about terrorism—during which she highlighted how media coverage of terrorist acts has continually transformed since she helped lead the domestic terrorism investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing as U.S. Attorney for Arizona. She also emphasized her continued commitment as Secretary of Homeland Security to ensuring the public receives timely and accurate information during an incident while maintaining the security of sensitive data.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov .

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1271708599442.shtm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report: Violence on College Campuses

Thank you, Ginny [Sloan]. It's good to be with you, and it's a privilege to join you in celebrating the extraordinary contributions and achievements of tonight's honorees, George Kendall and Ambassador [Thomas] Pickering. Congratulations to you both.

I'm especially grateful for this opportunity to tell the Constitution Project's leadership and membership how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice, to the promise of equal justice, and to our nation's most essential and enduring values.

On behalf of the Department of Justice, let me thank you, in particular, for your strong support of the Access to Justice Initiative that we launched last month. This new office – led by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe – reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority. With the same dedication that you showed in calling for this initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.

As we look toward this future, and toward the progress we seek to realize, I'd like to talk with you tonight about the unprecedented challenges that – together – we must overcome.

Just yesterday, I had the chance to discuss some of these challenges with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has serious responsibilities – none more serious than keeping the American people safe – and our approach to these responsibilities understandably provokes robust debate, and even criticism. Now, as I look around this room, I realize that, just like yesterday, I'm speaking to some who have not always agreed with the entirety of our approach when it comes to protecting our national security. In fact, one of the things I've learned over the last year is that it simply is not possible, as Attorney General, to make everyone happy. But, despite this fact, I also know that everyone in this room shares a common goal: the goal of protecting America's safety, America's interests and America's values, by adhering to the rule of law. So tonight, let me tell you exactly where I stand when it comes to meeting this essential goal.

Let's start with one stark fact: We are a nation at war. In this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy.

Let me assure you: I know the seriousness of the threat we face.  I know that – both in distant countries as well as within our own borders – there are people plotting to kill Americans. I begin each day with a briefing on the latest, and most urgent, threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.

Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won't come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.

But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws. This means that the government's powers are defined both by our tangible laws – the Constitution, statutes, court precedents – and also by the basic principle of the rule of law. Within this framework, I believe we must do everything within our legal power to protect the American people. Just as on a battlefield, every arm of the government must use every appropriate weapon available to win this war. I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are “coddling terrorists” is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have “rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies.” In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe. This means we must use both statecraft and war craft, both our criminal justice system and our military authorities, both our civilian courts and our military commissions, to defeat our enemies. The best traditions of our country – of a responsible, respectful government, of the rule of law, of the neutral administration of justice – call for this.

The Administration's – and the Justice Department's – commitment to using every available tool to fight terrorism also reflects a simple fact about the war in which we are now engaged: we face a variety of threats, threats that require us to be both aggressive and innovative.

It is no exaggeration to describe our federal justice system, which was established by Article III of our Constitution, and our military commissions not just as tools, but as weapons against those who seek to do us harm. Both enable us to target and incapacitate terrorists. Both also allow us to achieve justice and ensure accountability for violent acts against us. When selecting between these two weapons, the choice should be based on a case-specific assessment of the threat at hand, the evidence in possession and a careful consideration of what will best allow us to achieve justice. That choice is not always easy to make or easy to publicly explain, especially because court rules and intelligence equities sometimes make it impossible to discuss in an open forum the reasoning for a particular decision. But I can tell you tonight about some of the differences between the two fora.

It says something, though, about the quality of the debate when the idea of using both the Article III justice system and military commissions has become deeply controversial. This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.

For example, the proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality. The reality is this: Since 9/11, more than 400 individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in civilian courts. Without civilian law enforcement and civilian courts, we would be denied the use of what has been our most effective weapon for disrupting, dismantling and defeating terror plots. It would hinder our ability to secure actionable intelligence, and to enlist international cooperation, in our fight against terrorism. It would deny us the means to punish the guilty and deter those who would commit crimes against us. And it would be a disservice to the history of our civilian justice system. There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security.

Just look at what our civilian courts have helped to achieve. Over the past year, I am proud to say that the Justice Department, working closely with our partners in the intelligence community, was extraordinarily successful in disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. And our ability to use our criminal justice system – including civilian courts – was a key part of this success.

For example, we detected and disrupted a plot to detonate explosives in Manhattan's subways. Najibullah Zazi has already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in this case, and we have also charged several of his associates with participating in the plot and related crimes.

We secured a guilty plea from David Headley for assisting in the deadly attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and for plotting another attack in Denmark. As part of his plea, Headley has already provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad.

Through the hard work of our federal law enforcement officials, we have obtained the cooperation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged in civilian court with attempting to bomb an airliner as it landed in Detroit last Christmas. Although I obviously cannot discuss the intelligence he has provided, I can tell you that it has been not just valuable, but actionable.

We convicted Aafia Siddiqui of attempting to murder U.S. military and law enforcement agents in Afghanistan. Siddiqui is a Pakistani physicist who, when captured in Afghanistan, was found with explosives, as well as information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and descriptions of U.S. landmarks. She later opened fire on U.S. personnel. The Justice Department under the Bush Administration indicted her in civilian court in 2008, and she was convicted two months ago in New York.

These are just a few of many successes that resulted from the combined efforts of experienced prosecutors, intelligence agents, and the President's national security team. Each has made America safer.

On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances, and we need them, too. Those who denigrate these commissions must remember that, while federal courts can handle most terrorism prosecutions, in some cases, military commissions are not only appropriate, but also necessary to convict and neutralize terrorists. Last year, the Obama Administration spent a great deal of time and effort working with Congress to revise the commission rules to ensure that they are consistent with the rule of law. Congress has taken extraordinary steps to reform and improve these commissions since they were first introduced.

The truth is that the reformed commissions draw from the same Constitutional protections that underlie our civilian courts – the key difference being that, in commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and the difficulties of conducting investigations in a war zone. I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I've referred six cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. And I expect to refer additional cases.

There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in select cases while still prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. As I have said, no matter what one thinks of the bigger questions surrounding the debate about courts and commissions, it is important to understand their practical differences and how they must affect the choice of forum.

First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated forces. That means members of other terrorist groups – such as Hamas, Hizbollah or the FARC – may not be tried in military commissions. Neither can the likes of Hosam Smadi or Michael Finton, two lone wolf terrorists who, though inspired by al Qaeda, were not part of it when they attempted to blow up buildings in our country last year. And, under current statute, military commissions may not be used against U.S. citizens like Anwar Awlaki or Jose Padilla, no matter what kind of horrendous acts they commit.

Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses available than the military commissions, which can only prosecute some violations of the laws of war. In addition to the many federal statutes for terrorism-related offenses, prosecutors can also make use of other charges – like making false statements to investigators, passport or document fraud, or firearms offenses – to convict suspected terrorists. This means that terrorist plots can be disrupted even while evidence to prove terrorism charges is still being collected. It means the government can rely on a range of levers to secure suspected terrorists' cooperation – something that has repeatedly produced useful, actionable intelligence. And it means that civilian courts can provide just punishment for a broader range of bad acts.

Third, our civilian courts have well-established rules, significant experience and more than 200 years of precedents. In short, they have a reliability that establishes credibility. Although I'm confident we've done a good job of reforming and improving military commissions, they do not, yet, have the same time-tested track record of civilian courts.

Fourth, there is the issue of international cooperation. Our civilian courts are well respected internationally. Our allies are comfortable with the formal and informal mechanisms to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for trial in civilian court. As we prove the effectiveness and fairness of military commissions, I expect our allies will take notice. And I hope they will grow more willing to cooperate with commission trials.

It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured as we engage in a national conversation about how best to prosecute terrorism offenses. As I have said, I know there are different views on how best to approach our national security work, and we should have a legitimate and robust conversation about it. But in listening to the recent debate, I've heard language that, frankly, seems calculated to scare people rather than to educate them. Such distortion is unfair to the dedicated men and women who serve in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We should not stand by as the hard work of the FBI and other federal and state law enforcement officials, as well as career prosecutors, is marginalized and maligned. These men and women serve our country honorably – just as our military personnel are doing overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their work helps protect our country from terrorists, and they deserve our gratitude and our respect. Without them, government simply could not meet its most critical and basic responsibility of protecting American lives.

Meeting this responsibility has never been more difficult. In this time of war, we must pursue victory in a way that's pragmatic, effective, aggressive and true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents. The security of our country – and the protection of its values and ideals – is our shared concern. And it must become our common cause – one that unites us, strengthens us, and extends our nation's greatest traditions. You can, you must, remain leaders in that effort.

Thank you.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-1004152.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the FBI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK Our Role in Supporting Victims 04/19/10 Approximately 21 million Americans each year are victimized by crime—acts of terrorism, violent crime, financial fraud, child abuse, computer crime, kidnapping, bank robbery...the list is endless. This week—National Crime Victims' Rights Week—we pause to remember and express our support for victims. The FBI's Office for Victim Assistance plays a vital role here…not just because it's the right thing to do, but also because it facilitates the cooperation and participation of victims in the criminal justice process.

“The role of victim advocates in state and local agencies and non-governmental programs is absolutely critical…we all benefit from these collaborations, but victims most of all.” Kathryn Turman FBI Office for Victim Assistance ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Podcast: Inside the FBI Kathryn Turman discusses the Office for Victim Assistance Information for Victims Victim Assistance Program HTML | PDF Coping After Terrorism for Survivors HTML | PDF Coping After Terrorism for Injured Survivors HTML | PDF Child Pornography Victim Assistance HTML | PDF Help for Victims of Bank Robbery HTML | PDF Criminal Aviation Investigations HTML | PDF  Learn more at the FBI Office for Victim Assistance

FBI victim specialists were called in on some well-known cases—the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship off the coast of Somalia, and the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping case in California. They also supported victims in cases that didn't make headlines but were just as important to us—like the elderly victim of a $2 million investment fraud, the 17-year-old victim of domestic abuse, and the young child molested by a predator on a live webcam.

• We've begun offering “reintegration” services to civilian hostage victims overseas—everything from arranging for travel home and ensuring counseling and follow-up medical care to debriefings, medical and mental health assessments, and reunification with family members. We hope to tailor aspects of this program for kidnap cases, particularly those involving children.
  
  
• We've piloted a program using a therapy dog to help provide support to victims, especially children who have been assaulted and have to undergo medical examinations. Since the program began, the dog has provided affection and comfort to victims of human trafficking, bank robberies, and even some white-collar crimes.
  

• We've assigned more victim specialists to Indian Country (more than 800 of the victims we worked with last year were Native Americans).
  

• We've published new brochures (above) with useful victim information regarding terrorism, child pornography, criminal aviation disasters, and bank robberies.
  

While the FBI supports many victims, we can't reach all of them and we can't provide all that victims need. Says Kathryn Turman, “That's why the role of victim advocates in state and local agencies and non-governmental programs is absolutely critical…we all benefit from these collaborations, but victims most of all.”

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/victims_041910.html

.